AIDS denial is immoral

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by spuriousmonkey, Jan 2, 2007.

  1. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    They can say that HIV causes flu-like symptoms after the initial infection but that doesn't mean that they ever proved it. The standard of proof has been inverted. Anyone who claims superpowers and impossibilities for AIDS is held to no standard of evidence. Anyone who dismisses those claims, you've seen what the Monkey has to say about that.

    The claim that HIV caused some symptoms after the initial "infection" did not come until the promoters of HIV disease had spent years saying that AIDS caused no symptoms until later. The promoters offered little and no real evidence that it caused disease later, also. Their one big piece of evidence was the fact that an antibody test would come up positive in some people. Duesberg used to talk himself blue in the face about the fact that it wasn't proven that this even meant that the virus was there, but to counter him the promoters came up with a lot of meaningless rhetoric and stories about how millions of people were dying and they didn't have time to do the science right so we should all just play ball.

    The promoters were saying that the presence of the antibodies proved the presence of the virus when they didn't have any evidence that this was the case, when they couldn't culture the virus, literally making the claim that they knew that this was the case when they didn't have the means to prove it, and when they had no other example to prove that a virus was still active in the system when antibodies were present. All of the rest of their evidence that the virus was doing anything was in the "symptoms" that the patients had, and there is ample evidence that those "symptoms" were caused by drugs, both recreational and prescription. There was never a need to say that the virus must be making those people sick when they were overmedicated with drugs that were known to make people sick.

    In the other known examples the virus was present when the illness was present, and there were symptoms distinct from those caused by drugs. AZT is a drug that was so destructive that it was deemed to poisonous to use to treat cancer. Prednisone suppresses the immune system badly enough to cause pneumonia in its users. What part of this is difficult to understand? People who take "powerful" medications for long periods of time get sick. This was known before "AIDS" was a term. Many articles ran in many journals about the fact that medications like Prednisone were overused.

    Part of the problem is that when doctors see a "marker" or they see one or two symptoms of the collection of symptoms they presume the rest and ignore evidence to the contrary.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Long before Duesberg wrote about AIDS there were a lot of articles about how lifestyle hurt the immune system. Before then it was perfectly reasonable to understand that the immune system didn't work right in people who used some drugs, who were exposed to radiation and chemicals, and who had certain diseases that were already well known like malaria and tuberculosis. It took the imposition of a special set of rules to blame these on a brand new virus that hadn't even been discovered yet.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    This is one of the stories that Spuriousmonkey does not want people here to read. Notice that it has 132 references in its bibliography:

    The drug AZT is so destructive, how can it be moral to force people to take it?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Here's a link for you to read, Metakron.
    It's online copy of a textbook on retroviruses.
    The link is to the chapter on hiv. You might find it educational.

    Interestingly, I couldn't resist going to your website, I didn't spend much time reading it, but I did happen across the page where they offer money for proof that the hiv virus has been isolated. They then have a list of conditions (stated as the minimal list of conditions as provided by the Pasteur Institute on the isolation of retroviruses or some such) but I have seen, time and time again, mention of the hiv virus being isolated. There have been electron microscope photographs of the hiv virus.
    Now, I'm not a virologist so really can't comment on this with any certainty, but I more than suspect that your site isn't being completely honest about this. I don't think that if the term 'isolated' was so strictly defined then all these publications would mention it without following the definition.

    Do some reading from some real educational material.
    There's a good immunology textbook on that site too although the table of contents isn't linked. I've made a firefox bookmark html with all the chapters and such. I'm finding it rather good reading.
    Lot's of good stuff there even if it's a pain in the ass to read because of the missing table of contents (the retrovirus book has linked chapters though. So you lucked out.)
  8. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    Damn, i really wish it was me who wrote that, couldnt have put it any better.
  9. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Invert, the site and sources like Val Turner and Duesberg are the result of attempts to be as accurate as possible about the state of AIDS research. They did everything possible to be "honest" about this material.

    Did you read my last link? It has a lot of the problem in one article. AZT is very capable of causing all "AIDS-related" symptoms. It is also capable of causing cancer, a fact that has been known since before 1970. Think about all of the biological systems that depend on rapidly replicating cells and the consequences if they were forced to stop replicating. In my occupation, if I were able to work at all, I would literally have no fingertips left. They are hard enough to maintain as it is and I depend on rapid cell replication simply to keep my hands in working order.

    One of the destructive things that AZT can do is cause neurological abnormalities. It is an untrue myth that nerve cells do not heal. If they did not no one would have feeling in major portions of their bodies by the time they reached adulthood. All that is required for any abnormalities to occur is for the healing process to be prevented. It's called "wear and tear."

    I don't have time to go through a major overhaul of lentivirus theory. It would seem that your response to any challenge to the authority of "mainstream" theory is that I should read it and accept its authority. Of course, you probably won't accept my challenge, that you should make a comprehensive reading of dissident theory, which draws very heavily on mainstream sources, another fact that someone here wants to obliterate.

    The "lentiviruses" that you want me to believe in look like they are very likely to be RNA that is normally transmitted between cells. They may only be the signature of a genetic disease or a syndrome caused by environmental toxicities, or if someone spent enough time to carefully research the matter, they may be unrelated to the actual diseases. If you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. If you look for strands of RNA carrying around 10,000 bases, you will find them in every living thing, and how you define them as a lentivirus seems to be a matter of academic politics. You also may or may not be aware that the human genome project found that there are many retroviruses incorporated into human DNA. Another way to look at it is that there is encoding in human DNA that produces what looks like retroviruses through the normal process of transcription.

    Duesberg and others whose articles appear on the virusmyth site took the time and effort to find the mistakes that others have made. Their story is naturally not going to match up with what you thought was true, and that does not make it untrue or dishonest. They have heavy duty documentation of things like the problems with the AZT trials, and the toxicity of AZT is something that you can find on the manufacturer's own website, including their own statement that the symptoms of AZT use look like the symptoms of "AIDS", which is hardly unexpected since AZT was known first and always as a drug that suppresses the immune system.

    The case for AIDS as a disease caused by a retrovirus has obvious flaws that people have spend a lot of time and energy talking their way around. They introduce complexities without justifying them and ask that people who are skeptical of AIDS should accept those complexities uncritically.

    How do you know that the HIV virus has been photographed? Those photographs don't even include a scale so that you can know whether those particles are measured in microns or nanometers. They might tell you that they think each feature is this that or the other thing, but they can't probe into that sample and demonstrate directly that there is even RNA in those little vesicles. They want you to put a lot of faith in judgements that can't be verified by any human. Then they want you to give up faith in your own judgement when they tell you things that are obviously wrong, obvious to the point of being painful, even when they cannot offer you proof of what they told you. I don't know what makes people fall for it. One thing that I do know is that a few people have made a tremendous and successful effort to suppress the truth.
  10. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    You should at least understand it.
    How do you think you can challenge the authority of something you don't understand?

    Yes. I agree that the drugs used to treat aids are dangerous.
    But, I disagree that they are aids.

    How can you even think this way?
    You're calling thousands of scientists liars.
    You're trying to call science itself a liar.
    There's been far too much research into this topic for it to be a hoax, Metakron. Hoaxes can't be carried off on this scale.

    Conspiracy mindsets are dangerous because once you step into it, you only go deeper and deeper and deeper.
    You eventually distrust everyone and everything. Because they all have to be in on it in order to carry off the conspiracy.
    A one way train to nowhere.
  11. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    It takes only a few bad apples to screw it all up, Invert. Everyone else has learned to play ball or find their academic careers ruined.

    Don't think that the miscreants can't do it. Personal experience tells me that they can and it's easy for them to do it. It also tells me that they will under circumstances that you might not believe even exist.

    How many group actions can you list from recent history that have to involve just exactly the conditions that you have given here? Just about all of them. Once people can swallow the immorality and stupidity of law, and what Americans do to each other when one is held, the AIDS crap becomes a triviality by comparison.
  12. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Well, I will agree with you there, there sure were a lot of problems with that one article. How many did you spot, MetaKron?
    According to whom? Citation, please.
    Zidovudine was first synthesized in 1964, at a cancer institute and a Medical University using grants from the National Institute of Health, to fight cancer. The drug, which is based upon a sugar (carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen & Oxygen), was found to be ineffective against cancer. Citation needed to prove it is known to cause cancer.
    So you literally believe you would wear your fingers to the bone if you took AZT + worked.
    Really, I've got to stop here.
  13. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member


    I'm happy to have pleased.
  14. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    that's ironic. Epidemiological studies you say?

    Didn't you say?
    I'm afraid I will hold you to that. Show me a specific documented case of someone with AIDS not having a HIV infection.

    Note how you do not commit yourself to giving any evidence.

    Glad to hear you only visit your favourite website and never check the sources.

    Here you can find the very first HIV paper published.
    Open it and scroll to figure 2. You will find an EM picture of the virus budding and .... tada...a scale bar. In nanometers. Because... tada... there is a scale bar. And it says it represents 100 nanometers.

    In short, you are just one lazy gay. you never bothered to look at the evidence. All you ever did was look at your favourite conspiracy websites.

    Needless to say you didn't bother to look at the evidence presented by me and others that show HIV causes AIDS.

    And since you are not going to read the real stuff I will post the picture for you. Please show us where there is no scalebar.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If you will go through scientific publications you will find out that all pictures (other than schematics) have scalebars, or the scale is mentioned in figure legends. It is standard practice.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2007
  15. Bells Staff Member


    Please read through these links I am about to provide as they are quite informative in exactly how HIV causes AIDS.

    How HIV causes AIDS

    Life cycle of HIV infection - slide format.

    The evidence that HIV causes AIDS

    Evidence that HIV causes AIDS - with links to other sites as well.

    How does HIV cause AIDS - answers Drs Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis in what both have postulated in regards to HIV and AIDS:

    Please read them Meta. I have read the site provided by you, now I ask you return the favour.
  16. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Understand, I'll gladly carry on if we can agree on just two things:

    Acknowledge that if "HIV/AIDS" is the only definition one accepts, then you are rather nakedly loading your request.

    Acknowledge that "HIV" is simply HTLV-III.


    Now, you are free to deride me for stating that statistics aren't case studies, but not to do so and yet hold the same opinion. Lastly, what I will or won't supply for consideration is, and has been, contingent.

    You might take note of that, above all.
  17. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Hello man from the past,

    I hope you know what obsolete means. Welcome to the year 2007.

    Is there any reason why you want to discuss HTLV-III other than a sad attempt at spreading confusion?
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    I keep reading this thread ....and I'm getting the basic idea that we're supposed to beleive every single thing that doctors and researchers report that right?

    Doctors and researchers can't ever be wrong? Doctors and researchers can't ever make mistakes, then build on those same mistakes for years and years?

    If doctors and researchers say that HIV is the cause of AIDS, do we take that without question, without any doubts?

    In the fifties and sixties, didn't doctors and researchers find some "miracle drug" called thalidomide? ...only to find out later that it caused horrid birth defects in the children of those vaccinated?

    Doctors and research reports? And if we do doubt it, does that mean that we'll be banned from sciforums??

    Baron Max
  19. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    To comply with your request, Oh, confused one.

    Answer my questions, if you please.
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, doctors can and do make mistakes.
    highly unlikely due to peer review.
  21. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Baron max, what's wrong with you? Of course you shouldn't believe doctors. You should read the literature and make up your own opinion.

    This doctor named Dr. P Duesberg came up with the theory that AIDS is not caused by HIV. Are you just going to believe him? Or would you, if you were truly interested (which you are not of course), look up the literature a bit, google a bit, see what people are saying, and form your own opinion?

    Or would you read an AIDS conspiracy site and believe everything they say?

    My initially reaction to the AIDS denial was to deny their case. Then I started looking through the literature if I didn't make a mistake. And I concluded that I didn't make a mistake by countering the AIDS denialist.

    i didn't take anyone's word for granted and I hope you won't either. I can tell you that I actually bothered to pull some of the original literature by different researchers and read it a bit through. I would think that forming an opinion on the real research is rather more likely to have value than reading an AIDS conspiracy site and declaring it holy.

    What do you think baron? should I just pretend all that research didn't exist? I don't have to take their word for it. I just look at their data and judge it myself.
  22. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    How would that be meaningful if doctors refuse to diagnose AIDS without evidence of HIV infection? If it's "by definition"?
  23. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    That's the essence of it.

Share This Page